Pet Shop Boys Community

Paddymacall wrote:No point having an argument about politics on the internet, its pointless.

Patrick Bateman wrote:What about compensation? Should the Yorkshire Ripper get compensation for the loss of an eye in prison?

A little different, but if we're going to award payments to victims of violent crime (which we do) then I don't see how you could withhold payment from him.

People are going to have to get used to the idea that a person doesn't forfeit their right to be treated as a human being just because they may have done bad things in their life.

I don't know what he's complaining for .... he could use the £2500 he received and buy a ticket and leave the country he so despises ....

Or use the money to buy a flannel and soap and get f*** hair cut.

The European Court of Human Rights is one of the few institutions worthy of genuine respect. They are absolutely right in this case. This detention without trial lark is a joke. If there is a case against somebody, bring it to a court. Otherwise, we no longer exist in a democracy where the rule of law is upheld and is transparent.

Secondly, it's self-defeating to consider even appalling individuals sub-human or "animals". That allows us to avoid facing up to the fact that we human beings are truly capable of heinous acts in the "right" circumstances. Far more expedient to blame it all on evil "monsters" who just happen to be bad to the bone.

Finally, if any prisoner loses an eye in prison, yes, he is entitled to compensation simply because the state is charged with providing a detention environment that complies with Human Rights legislation. We may not be too quick to sympathise with such a victim, but a victim he absolutely is in that case.

But you see, this idea that these people should have their human rights thrown out is no surprise. Bush's abrogation of his responsibilites under the Geneva Conventions takes its inevitable toll. Britons, used to the government policy of the craven lapdog Tony Blair, find it all the harder as a consequence to remember what it is they once stood for.

Drico.

It's been highly amusing watching our right-wing PM Stephen Harper now grovelling before Obama. Until recently, he was a Bush lap-dog too.

-Zog

patrick wrote:

glennjridge wrote:what nuns wear is HARDLY comparable to a burka in 100 degre weather with a tiny mesh viewing area.

Actually it's identical except for a piece of cloth about six inches square. The difference between the West and the cultures we're talking about is secularism as a political force. Women historically have been shafted by Western religion and their gains have largely come about through the push of secularism. Nuns' habits are not accidental and if you want to see hilarious beachwear or daily dress just look at our own fundamentalists like some of the Mormon sects. Although at least the Mormons haven't massacred anyone for 150 years and the Christians now limit their terrorism to doctors.

And while I don't believe there's moral equivalency at play it's certainly worth noting the amount of international destruction and interference generated by the US and Muslim terrorists over the years. The world in general has more to fear from us what with our history of undermining legitimate elections, invading nations without pretext, nuking civilians etc. And while we also do a lot of good, it's worth noting too that Islam was gifting the world and carrying the intellectual and artistic torch while we suffered through our dark ages. It's all swings and roundabouts.

We have to ask ourselves why nobody bombs Canada.

oh, thats not some commentary on rightiousness.the obvious reason is because canada is like the guy who doesnt want to get involved in what goes on around him.your never in the line of fire if you live on the fence.

and the idea what nuns wear can be comparable to the burka because of material comparisons is just you bored and wanting to argue the opposite view point.

women are forced to wear them because women are considered second class citizens. inferior.not out of some religious gift to God. because if it were so Godly men would be wearing them...and thats just not comfortable for men.

Islams role in early history can be summed up with a janet jackson song. "what have you done for me lately?"

Danny C wrote:

Patrick Bateman wrote:What about compensation? Should the Yorkshire Ripper get compensation for the loss of an eye in prison?

A little different, but if we're going to award payments to victims of violent crime (which we do) then I don't see how you could withhold payment from him.

People are going to have to get used to the idea that a person doesn't forfeit their right to be treated as a human being just because they may have done bad things in their life.

hey thats fine.morally I'm sure thats right to be the better man and all that. an thats also why as I said there will be sharia law someday in places it could never dream it would be.

because the west is like the chiverous knight against a barbarian mentality and in the end, as history shows people who play by the rules lose out against those that dont.thats why the US loses so many wars.

but as I always say ad nauseum, as long as sharia happens to brown people in far off places of the world far from our soft lives...its cool ...its only crazy brown people.

" thats not some commentary on rightiousness.the obvious reason is because canada is like the guy who doesnt want to get involved in what goes on around him.your never in the line of fire if you live on the fence."

Dare I point out that Canada has a heavy troop commitment in Afghanistan? And Canada was not on the fence regarding Iraq... Canada was against the invasion.

Also, regarding getting "involved"... Canada was involved in both WW1 and WWII several years before the US entered both of those wars.

-Zog

yes ....you are right on both counts. I phrased this probably badly.I know they have troops in afganistan but they dont dictate or shape any foriegn policy in muslims lands...and they dont support Israel like the USA does.

in short they dont rate much to the muslim extremists.

Danny C wrote:

Patrick Bateman wrote:He's had to hide in a cave for several years, there's all the unwelcome publicity and he can't visit his favourite barber.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7899942.stm

We shouldn't detain people without trial. We also shouldn't send people to countries where there's a realistic chance they'll be tortured or killed.

These are important principles, and the thing about principles is they're non-negotiable, so not only do they apply to nice people, they apply to vermin like Qatada.

It's principles like these that make us better than the people we're trying to defend ourselves against.

What PC bollocks - you'd probably write him a cheque yourself...

He needs to be subjected to the uncaring righteous torture that he would subject upon you if the situation were reversed.

Danny C wrote:

Patrick Bateman wrote:What about compensation? Should the Yorkshire Ripper get compensation for the loss of an eye in prison?

A little different, but if we're going to award payments to victims of violent crime (which we do) then I don't see how you could withhold payment from him.

People are going to have to get used to the idea that a person doesn't forfeit their right to be treated as a human being just because they may have done bad things in their life.

Thank ****** there are some of us out here who realise there is no god and can rationalize this. Are you a reformed rapist or something ??!!!! - you must be an idealistic 9 yr old because you need a kick !

df118junkie wrote:He needs to be subjected to the uncaring righteous torture that he would subject upon you if the situation were reversed.

I agree, and ideally, that is what would happen. Sadly, though, doing that would make us no better than him. Much as it pains me to say it. I'd love half an hour in a room with some of these scumbags.

df118junkie wrote:
What PC bollocks - you'd probably write him a cheque yourself...

He needs to be subjected to the uncaring righteous torture that he would subject upon you if the situation were reversed.

It's not PC bollocks at all. He's one of the few people talking sense in this thread, actually. You cannot have a civilised society by hand-picking those whose rights you would respect and those whose rights you would trample on. Otherwise, let's just have a free-for-all - something the Osamas of the world are well versed in and aspire to.

Human rights are rights extended to all humans. ALL humans. That may not be the most thrilling of realities when dealing with certain lunatics, but it's the basic code of civilisation and democracy. Tamper with that and you unravel the protection granted to all innocent citizens.

Bush and his fundamentalist cronies succeeded brilliantly at turning ostensibly decent people into cheerleaders for fascism. You either respect human rights or you don't. There is no middle ground. Bin Laden doesn't. I'd rather not have something in common with him.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:

df118junkie wrote:
What PC bollocks - you'd probably write him a cheque yourself...

He needs to be subjected to the uncaring righteous torture that he would subject upon you if the situation were reversed.

1. Human rights are rights extended to all humans. ALL humans. That may not be the most thrilling of realities when dealing with certain lunatics, but it's the basic code of civilisation and democracy. Tamper with that and you unravel the protection granted to all innocent citizens.

2. There is no middle ground.

Drico.

1. When you display non human rights to mankind, you deserve to be removed from the gene pool. Call that radical, or call that evolution - it should not be decided by some PC people who would cry if I gave them a Chinese Burn...
To say otherwise just gives the terrorists a laugh and let's them know they can get away with it.

2. There is - it's called reality. An unblinkered, non religious viewpoint that realises that "survival of the species" means that those who kill will one day be killed...

Understand this - I love people - I have no malice to anyone who walks around this earth and threatens no-one. When you have a car bomb go off in the street, or have to remove a bullet from some gang banger, then you will start to understand the realities of futility - and Darwin will take over...